and the only reason warp drive was invented in-universe was to make a dirty, horny old man enough money to retire to an island of naked women...but look at what it kicked off
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
and the only reason warp drive was invented in-universe was to make a dirty, horny old man enough money to retire to an island of naked women...but look at what it kicked off
Isn't that the reason for everything in this world?
not EVERYTHING...islands full of naked women were kind of hard to get to before large ocean-faring vessels were created, so inventions before that were created for different reasons
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
CBS has plenty of content for their streaming service without Trek, been a subscriber for almost a year now. It might help you to learn something about what you speak of before you speak.
As for the mythical "dream of Trek", the only reason why the franchise ever existed is to make money, pure & simple.
Perhaps for you. Not me. I havent been interested in anything CBS has had to offer since the 1970s. My friends almost universally prefer reruns on Netflix to modern broadcast TV.
As for the dream: you can see it in the fans who dressed in homade uniforms for decades after TOS was canceled. The fact that Trek was produced for profit does not invalidate the dream of a better future many of us embraced as the core of Trek.
CBS has plenty of content for their streaming service without Trek, been a subscriber for almost a year now. It might help you to learn something about what you speak of before you speak.
As for the mythical "dream of Trek", the only reason why the franchise ever existed is to make money, pure & simple.
Perhaps for you. Not me. I havent been interested in anything CBS has had to offer since the 1970s.
You really ought to check out what CBS All Access has to offer. Ever want to watch, say, a particular episode of the old classic Twilight Zone, but nobody was running it? It's there. Want to indulge in the cheesy goodness of the old Hawaii 5-0, and see how it differs from the new version? Miss the realMacGyver? Up for some I Love Lucy? It's all in there. And then, of course, there's all six existing Trek series...
All of which is on Netflix or Firestick, so I should pay for a second streaming service for the same content already available through other service providers?
Literally the only thing All Access has of any interest to me is Discovery, and it's not out yet. You are welcome to spend your entertainment budget as you like. I'll wait a year.
The essential problem is that Hollywood has fallen into the nepotism trap. People of immense talent built Hollywood, then passed it along to their kids who have lots of money but no creativity. They are unwilling to invest in a gamble because it might fail, thus costing a lot of money and, more importantly, making them look stupid. Because of Hollywood's fear of failure we have how many Batman remakes? There is a mass rush in Hollywood to be the second studio to cash in on something original. Why risk making a Babylon 5 that nobody understands when you can assure your advertisers with generic family sitcom #538? Really, how is Last Man Standing any different from Tool Time? We all know the easy path leads downhill, but Hollywood is headed there fast.
What does that even mean?
Nepotism has little to do with Hollywood's current situation. Yes, Hollywood is far more interested in proven commodities than brave new ideas... generally speaking. One could argue, though, that this generality hasn't worked for every studio, and in every situation. Further, some of the more proven franchises are seeking smaller stories with smaller budgets... and, yes, while that is ultimately looking at profit (hi, we live in the capitalistic Western world), SOME properties are also recognizing that this often leads to better storytelling. The Fox/X-Men franchise has all-but-stated that they want to move in this direction. Marvel Studios wants to move in this direction, I think to some degree, for Phase 4. Lucasfilm has talked about limiting the Star Wars movies after Episode IX, to avoid franchise fatigue.
CBS doesn't have enough product to sustain a streaming service, and most subscribers will not invest $60/year to watch a dozen episodes of Star Trek when they can wait a year and get it free. Yet CBS has already sold the European rights to Netflix for a huge sum because Trekkies are known to buy anything branded with a lop-sided A. Why they do so is unknown, at least in Hollywood.
What?
First of all, you'll NEVER GET THIS SERIES FOR "FREE." THERE IS NO "FREE" IN HOLLYWOOD. Second of all, your characterization of the international distribution deal sorely lacks understanding in how Hollywood works. Thanks to that distribution deal, a majority of the new series was funded before one frame was filmed. It's a bet, sure, but given that sci-fi shows are VERY EXPENSIVE, this is a positive for the show... and smart business for CBS.
I am far more concerned that the failure of Discovery will both kill Trek for another generation and keep it out of the hands of small producers who are willing to risk failure to bring us what they believe is good Trek for another 50 years. As a kid I watched TOS and TAS because, as crappy as the production values were at times, they were trying to bring original, thought-provoking stories to TV. They were opening a window of optimism for a world stifling in pessimism.
I also watched Trek's dream of a better humanity wash away under the wave of producers and writers who never understood Trek. A great writer for Hill Street Blues may not be your best choice to write for any Trek, because the one must assume humans are always venal and corruptible while the other must assume humans to be evolving and perfectable. The ideas are mutually exclusive, so it's no wonder Hollywood writers failed again and again and then blamed the very audience they unknowingly betrayed for their failures.
They are in the position of the myopic sniper: they can't shoot what they can't see.
Let's pump the breaks on talking about Discovery failing BEFORE WE HAVE EVEN SEEN AN EPISODE.
As for your dig on the producers... smaller producers aren't as blameless as you portray them. For every Continues, there's... "that one guy (no one really wants to talk about)." You can prop up someone like Maurice Hurley as a bad hire, or the later mismanagement (fair or not) of Rick Berman... but, there's countless writers and producers that made great Trek.
CBS has plenty of content for their streaming service without Trek, been a subscriber for almost a year now. It might help you to learn something about what you speak of before you speak.
As for the mythical "dream of Trek", the only reason why the franchise ever existed is to make money, pure & simple.
Perhaps for you. Not me. I havent been interested in anything CBS has had to offer since the 1970s.
You really ought to check out what CBS All Access has to offer. Ever want to watch, say, a particular episode of the old classic Twilight Zone, but nobody was running it? It's there. Want to indulge in the cheesy goodness of the old Hawaii 5-0, and see how it differs from the new version? Miss the realMacGyver? Up for some I Love Lucy? It's all in there. And then, of course, there's all six existing Trek series...
And, while I think it is a measure of last resort... CBS always has the card of pulling Trek out of Netflix completely. I still think that's on the table for them. Shoot, there are no Trek movies on Netflix right now, because their deal with Paramount expired months ago.
And, some of those Trek movies have made it to All Access, too.
Well if they tell a story about exploration and diplomacy instead of combat...
Doesn't matter. I'm talking about command responsibilities, not specifically about how the fight scenes are formatted. I'll explain more below.
But assuming there's any sense to the show's continuity placement (which isn't guaranteed the way things seem to be going), I guarantee it will deal with combat, because at this point in history the Federation was essentially in a cold war with both the Klingons and the Romulans.
I'm not saying it's not a good idea, DS9 managed an ensemble cast extremely well. I'm just skeptical about how long it will last before we're focused on Captain Lorca instead of Commander Rainsford.
Or, far more likely... Rainsford gets promoted to captain...
I really hope that doesn't happen. I hate this tropes in Trek that Starfleet is the end-all-be-all in the future, and the CAPTAIN is the end-all-be-all of Starfleet. There have been writers, like Ron Moore, that tried to break those notions... but, it seems like they've never stuck.
The captain is the be-all-end-all of the ship, that's why it doesn't stick. The CO is basically God: even admirals defer to the captain in purely shipboard matters. It's just a fundamental fact of how naval vessels operate. Add to that, in peacetime Starfleet seems to generally operate its ships independently of one another rather than as part of a fleet, so admirals don't get much play outside of being faces on a screen.
DS9 and nBSG had the advantages of mixed casts: the main cast ensemble included several civilians (Quark, Jake, Garak) and two members of a different service than Starfleet (Kira and Odo), and that's before you even get to the recurring cast like Weyoun and Dukat. nBSG had both of those (plus the added wrinkle of the air wing, which technically is a different chain of command altogether from the captain of the ship).
So, they're supposedly a good three months into filming but they've switched Shazad Latif from playing a named Klingon to playing a Starfleet lieutenant.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
I've only been following it from afar, but I think today will tell us if a strike will happen. Hard to say HOW a strike would impact Discovery, if one takes place.
If they're not done writing scripts, though, then it could delay the series... which would not be a great thing, even just from an optics standpoint.
I sincerely hope there's no strike - because the last one caused NBC to air already-canceled episodes of Celebrity Apprentice instead of their popular Thursday-night comedies, and, well...
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Yes, it's good to see the show is back on track for fall.
It's also interesting, but not surprising, that CBS will soon offer a bundled subscription to All Access and Showtime for cord-cutters. For starters, this is exactly how CBS will turn this venture into some level of success. The bundle will be at a discounted rate than owning the two subs separately. CBS will get a few extra dollars, and the question of how they'll provide more content is answered.
And, guess what, kids? This is where we're going. More and more content providers will see this, and offer all kinds of bundles to get your money. You're DREAMING if you think your Netflix subscription will stay at the $9.99 price, while still holding the same content library.
And, is anyone paying attention to ESPN at the moment? They're losing money big time, and they're likely going through another round of layoffs this summer. They'll fight to keep their major sports broadcasting contracts when they come up in a few years... but, there is a good chance ESPN won't be able to pay for the NFL, or someone outbids them. ESPN is the big cat that keeps cable afloat, and if it goes under or loses major live sports content, CABLE IS DEAD.
THAT, boys and girls, is why CBS is positioning All Access by using our beloved IP.
And, is anyone paying attention to ESPN at the moment? They're losing money big time, and they're likely going through another round of layoffs this summer. They'll fight to keep their major sports broadcasting contracts when they come up in a few years... but, there is a good chance ESPN won't be able to pay for the NFL, or someone outbids them. ESPN is the big cat that keeps cable afloat, and if it goes under or loses major live sports content, CABLE IS DEAD.
This is what happens when a business gets involved with politics. It was also the main problem with some of the Super Bowl commercials. A business getting political alienates a certain group which drives customers away. Therefore, a business should only care about the color green. Although, Cable is dying even if ESPN is successful. Why bother getting a cable package when a streaming service or Internet TV is far more useful and cheaper.
And, is anyone paying attention to ESPN at the moment? They're losing money big time, and they're likely going through another round of layoffs this summer. They'll fight to keep their major sports broadcasting contracts when they come up in a few years... but, there is a good chance ESPN won't be able to pay for the NFL, or someone outbids them. ESPN is the big cat that keeps cable afloat, and if it goes under or loses major live sports content, CABLE IS DEAD.
This is what happens when a business gets involved with politics. It was also the main problem with some of the Super Bowl commercials. A business getting political alienates a certain group which drives customers away. Therefore, a business should only care about the color green. Although, Cable is dying even if ESPN is successful. Why bother getting a cable package when a streaming service or Internet TV is far more useful and cheaper.
Yes, but I don't think ESPN's problems are purely because of politics. ESPN overpaid for big time sports broadcasting deals, while simultaneously failing to react to cord-cutters. Mix that in with other problems plaguing sports programming (concussions, watering down of level of play, too many commercials, etc.)... they're kinda screwed. It's a literal "house of cards" deal with the cable companies. If ESPN goes under, cable prices will go down... but if there is no live sports content to warrant a cable subscription at all, cable companies won't be able to maintain business of any type. (And, to be clear, live sports is a main reason why cable has been successful for so long, and why ESPN has maintained it's dominance.)
Politics is affecting entertainment in general, sure... and that is another aspect affecting cable. As you say, if that is all that cable can offer someone, few if any will want it.
If it's CBS, or Warner Bros. with DC TV properties... content makers are starting to wake up to this.
Well network TV in general is pretty much the current dinosaur of entertainment mediums. It is only a matter of time before we see all the major studios launch their own streaming services as the sole place to watch their content. The old TV model just isn't sustainable going forward anymore.
Sadly though this means that content will eventually become segregated by studios and their respective parent companies.
Sadly though this means that content will eventually become segregated by studios and their respective parent companies.
And that will ruin a good thing once again because the rightfully so-called dinosaurs do not comprehend the advantage of modern development and instead insist of applying tbeir archaic models onto it.
Edit: Wow I was able to use BBcode quote on android?
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Bundling of streaming services is coming. Netflix may not be the ultimate winner, but it will be the model for whomever does come out on top.
Studios will discover, just as Cable did, that people may pay extra to get the programming they want, but if that programming is spread out behind too many paywalls they will buy the one they want most and ignore the rest.
How many premium channel packages does the average cable subscriber purchase? One.
This is what studio-specific subscriptions are running into head first. People on average will not pay for a sports package, a movie package, and a childrens entertainment package. They pick the one they want most.
Similarly, they won't pay for a CBS package, an NBC package, an ABC package, an HBO package, and a Disney package. Not as a subscription contract, anyway. Cable has proved this already, and adapted by offering more and more channels on Basic.
Now they are faced with customers bailing out of cable contracts in favor of streaming services. They are also facing the increasing speed of customer desertion due to their escalating prices due, in large part, to customer desertion. It's a self defeating strategy which will result in the end of subscription cable TV.
As the big networks dissolve mostly due to the limitations the powerful cable lobbies imposed on broadcast TV by mandating local broadcasters use the digital format which is wholly inappropriate for the broadcast medium, the studios which feed them will have to acquire additional revenue streams. Eventually they will be forced to bundle because subscribers will choose one or two streaming services and ignore the rest.
Right now CBS can ride on its currently popular shows, but when the next Happy Days comes out on another network's service, people will drop CBS in order to budget the service that has Happy Days II.
So, I'm content to wait. In the digital age it is very difficult to permanently erase data, and everything currently on All Access will eventually be 'free' on another service for the simple reason that CBS studios will not choose to go down without a fight, and dumping their exclusive model will result in more revenue streams for the same product.
TrekMovie blew up the image and noted the (potential) communicators on their belts, and the (confirmed) tricorder on Michelle Yeoh... and it has a TOS feel to it.
We're also getting a clip later today, at the Upfront for CBS. Doesn't sound like a full-blown trailer, but a clip of a scene.
Are you the average viewer? Yes, there are many exceptions, but for every one of you there are ten who subscribe only to basic cable, and even a great many who, like my sister, have dropped cable TV entirely for a single streaming service and/or broadcast TV.
Comments
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Isn't that the reason for everything in this world?
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Perhaps for you. Not me. I havent been interested in anything CBS has had to offer since the 1970s. My friends almost universally prefer reruns on Netflix to modern broadcast TV.
As for the dream: you can see it in the fans who dressed in homade uniforms for decades after TOS was canceled. The fact that Trek was produced for profit does not invalidate the dream of a better future many of us embraced as the core of Trek.
Literally the only thing All Access has of any interest to me is Discovery, and it's not out yet. You are welcome to spend your entertainment budget as you like. I'll wait a year.
What does that even mean?
Nepotism has little to do with Hollywood's current situation. Yes, Hollywood is far more interested in proven commodities than brave new ideas... generally speaking. One could argue, though, that this generality hasn't worked for every studio, and in every situation. Further, some of the more proven franchises are seeking smaller stories with smaller budgets... and, yes, while that is ultimately looking at profit (hi, we live in the capitalistic Western world), SOME properties are also recognizing that this often leads to better storytelling. The Fox/X-Men franchise has all-but-stated that they want to move in this direction. Marvel Studios wants to move in this direction, I think to some degree, for Phase 4. Lucasfilm has talked about limiting the Star Wars movies after Episode IX, to avoid franchise fatigue.
What?
First of all, you'll NEVER GET THIS SERIES FOR "FREE." THERE IS NO "FREE" IN HOLLYWOOD. Second of all, your characterization of the international distribution deal sorely lacks understanding in how Hollywood works. Thanks to that distribution deal, a majority of the new series was funded before one frame was filmed. It's a bet, sure, but given that sci-fi shows are VERY EXPENSIVE, this is a positive for the show... and smart business for CBS.
Let's pump the breaks on talking about Discovery failing BEFORE WE HAVE EVEN SEEN AN EPISODE.
As for your dig on the producers... smaller producers aren't as blameless as you portray them. For every Continues, there's... "that one guy (no one really wants to talk about)." You can prop up someone like Maurice Hurley as a bad hire, or the later mismanagement (fair or not) of Rick Berman... but, there's countless writers and producers that made great Trek.
And, while I think it is a measure of last resort... CBS always has the card of pulling Trek out of Netflix completely. I still think that's on the table for them. Shoot, there are no Trek movies on Netflix right now, because their deal with Paramount expired months ago.
And, some of those Trek movies have made it to All Access, too.
But assuming there's any sense to the show's continuity placement (which isn't guaranteed the way things seem to be going), I guarantee it will deal with combat, because at this point in history the Federation was essentially in a cold war with both the Klingons and the Romulans.
The captain is the be-all-end-all of the ship, that's why it doesn't stick. The CO is basically God: even admirals defer to the captain in purely shipboard matters. It's just a fundamental fact of how naval vessels operate. Add to that, in peacetime Starfleet seems to generally operate its ships independently of one another rather than as part of a fleet, so admirals don't get much play outside of being faces on a screen.
DS9 and nBSG had the advantages of mixed casts: the main cast ensemble included several civilians (Quark, Jake, Garak) and two members of a different service than Starfleet (Kira and Odo), and that's before you even get to the recurring cast like Weyoun and Dukat. nBSG had both of those (plus the added wrinkle of the air wing, which technically is a different chain of command altogether from the captain of the ship).
Anyway, moving on:
http://io9.gizmodo.com/star-trek-discovery-switches-an-actors-role-mid-produc-1794747543
So, they're supposedly a good three months into filming but they've switched Shazad Latif from playing a named Klingon to playing a Starfleet lieutenant.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
I've only been following it from afar, but I think today will tell us if a strike will happen. Hard to say HOW a strike would impact Discovery, if one takes place.
If they're not done writing scripts, though, then it could delay the series... which would not be a great thing, even just from an optics standpoint.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
It's also interesting, but not surprising, that CBS will soon offer a bundled subscription to All Access and Showtime for cord-cutters. For starters, this is exactly how CBS will turn this venture into some level of success. The bundle will be at a discounted rate than owning the two subs separately. CBS will get a few extra dollars, and the question of how they'll provide more content is answered.
And, guess what, kids? This is where we're going. More and more content providers will see this, and offer all kinds of bundles to get your money. You're DREAMING if you think your Netflix subscription will stay at the $9.99 price, while still holding the same content library.
And, is anyone paying attention to ESPN at the moment? They're losing money big time, and they're likely going through another round of layoffs this summer. They'll fight to keep their major sports broadcasting contracts when they come up in a few years... but, there is a good chance ESPN won't be able to pay for the NFL, or someone outbids them. ESPN is the big cat that keeps cable afloat, and if it goes under or loses major live sports content, CABLE IS DEAD.
THAT, boys and girls, is why CBS is positioning All Access by using our beloved IP.
This is what happens when a business gets involved with politics. It was also the main problem with some of the Super Bowl commercials. A business getting political alienates a certain group which drives customers away. Therefore, a business should only care about the color green. Although, Cable is dying even if ESPN is successful. Why bother getting a cable package when a streaming service or Internet TV is far more useful and cheaper.
Yes, but I don't think ESPN's problems are purely because of politics. ESPN overpaid for big time sports broadcasting deals, while simultaneously failing to react to cord-cutters. Mix that in with other problems plaguing sports programming (concussions, watering down of level of play, too many commercials, etc.)... they're kinda screwed. It's a literal "house of cards" deal with the cable companies. If ESPN goes under, cable prices will go down... but if there is no live sports content to warrant a cable subscription at all, cable companies won't be able to maintain business of any type. (And, to be clear, live sports is a main reason why cable has been successful for so long, and why ESPN has maintained it's dominance.)
Politics is affecting entertainment in general, sure... and that is another aspect affecting cable. As you say, if that is all that cable can offer someone, few if any will want it.
If it's CBS, or Warner Bros. with DC TV properties... content makers are starting to wake up to this.
Sadly though this means that content will eventually become segregated by studios and their respective parent companies.
And that will ruin a good thing once again because the rightfully so-called dinosaurs do not comprehend the advantage of modern development and instead insist of applying tbeir archaic models onto it.
Edit: Wow I was able to use BBcode quote on android?
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Studios will discover, just as Cable did, that people may pay extra to get the programming they want, but if that programming is spread out behind too many paywalls they will buy the one they want most and ignore the rest.
How many premium channel packages does the average cable subscriber purchase? One.
This is what studio-specific subscriptions are running into head first. People on average will not pay for a sports package, a movie package, and a childrens entertainment package. They pick the one they want most.
Similarly, they won't pay for a CBS package, an NBC package, an ABC package, an HBO package, and a Disney package. Not as a subscription contract, anyway. Cable has proved this already, and adapted by offering more and more channels on Basic.
Now they are faced with customers bailing out of cable contracts in favor of streaming services. They are also facing the increasing speed of customer desertion due to their escalating prices due, in large part, to customer desertion. It's a self defeating strategy which will result in the end of subscription cable TV.
As the big networks dissolve mostly due to the limitations the powerful cable lobbies imposed on broadcast TV by mandating local broadcasters use the digital format which is wholly inappropriate for the broadcast medium, the studios which feed them will have to acquire additional revenue streams. Eventually they will be forced to bundle because subscribers will choose one or two streaming services and ignore the rest.
Right now CBS can ride on its currently popular shows, but when the next Happy Days comes out on another network's service, people will drop CBS in order to budget the service that has Happy Days II.
So, I'm content to wait. In the digital age it is very difficult to permanently erase data, and everything currently on All Access will eventually be 'free' on another service for the simple reason that CBS studios will not choose to go down without a fight, and dumping their exclusive model will result in more revenue streams for the same product.
TrekMovie blew up the image and noted the (potential) communicators on their belts, and the (confirmed) tricorder on Michelle Yeoh... and it has a TOS feel to it.
We're also getting a clip later today, at the Upfront for CBS. Doesn't sound like a full-blown trailer, but a clip of a scene.
Start the hype!
"That's no clip... it's a trailer!"